In the previous post I quoted an observation that screenwriter Frank
Cottrell Boyce made about characterization (as part of a longer article he
wrote for the Guardian on how to write successful films). Today, here’s one I
disagree with:
“Do a favourite bit - No one leaves the cinema saying: I loved that character arc. They come out saying: I loved the swordfight, or the bit with the bloated cow, or whatever. The manuals emphasise the flow of a narrative, but it's better to think of a film as a suite of sequences. That's where the pleasure is.
"I'm working on an animated feature at the moment. Traditionally, these films had no script at all. Teams built up a series of set-pieces and sequences around the story and characters. This is a great way to think.
"If you look at the first Godfather film, it's really an accumulation of anecdotes held together by the moral decline of Michael. Kes also works like this: the football match, the taming of the hawk, the careers officer and so on. Try breaking your script down into a series of chapters and giving them headings. If you want to see this not quite working, look at the Mission: Impossible films. Terrific action sequences marooned in quagmires of soggy exposition.”
Well—up to a point. Yes, it’s important to have some great sequences, but far too many films have been ruined because somebody insisted on a great sequence or two that have no relationship to the story, or made a movie with a weak story because they'd thought of a few strong sequences. I think the first Godfather film is a masterpiece because it has great sequences and superb plotting that is far from just an accumulation of anecdotes.
What do you think?
(If you've been thinking about writing a screenplay, get a copy of my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey. It'll give you guidance on plotting, characters, and much more.)
